GFX 63mm vs 32-64mm question

[dnercesian]

I was just wondering if there is anyone here who has or has had both of these lenses and formed an opinion one way or another in favor of one of them. I am thinking of buying one of the two lenses and I am normally inclined to go for the prime lens as that is mostly what I shoot, but I have heard great things about this zoom. Aside from the obvious, single focal length vs zoom, size/weight, and speed, I was wondering how these would compare. I guess I am asking specifically about the optics and rendering pros and cons between the two.

Thanks.

 

[Mark C]

I own the 63mm (you can find some of my images taken with it on here) and I've tried 2 copies of the 32-64mm. Nothing negative to say about the zoom, just that I prefer primes and wanted the 23mm to compliment the 63mm which I bought first. The zoom wouldn't be wide enough for what I want. The I Q of the zoom is fine from what I've seen, (though I think the primes have are even better) but as a single lens solution for, say, travel photography with the GFX it would cover most bases.The zoom is noticeably heavier than the 63mm and more expensive to buy so I balance the pros and cons here with your intended use of whatever you buy and whether you intend to invest further in the GF lens line up. I do, now looking forward to the 45mm release which should be soon! Whichever you end up buying, you'll find them all great quality and give excellent results.

 

[mjr]

I too have the 63mm and for the same reasons as Mark, I'm not really a zoom user, no real reason other than personal preference, the 63mm is a very good lens and for the price, I think it's excellent. I am getting the 23mm in the next week or two but still find that it's quite a gap to the 63mm so may try the zoom just for my own interest and see how it feels. I use the 63mm in the studio a lot and it fits perfectly for the shots I do, I don't need the zoom for commercial work so it's not a priority but I have read some very positive things about it.

Let us know how you get on with it if you end up getting one.

Mat

 

[Don Libby]

I have both and have found both to be excellent lens. I used the 63 and 23 exclusively while shooting inside Silo City recently. The 23 which equals 18mm worked great for wide spaces where light wasn't a real concern and the 63 when I wanted a tighter frame and much faster lens. The 32-64 was reserved for exterior when I might be shooting handheld and needed different focal lengths without using my feet.

I ended up using the 32-64 inside Colonel Ward pump station as I needed a method to quickly change the focal length without having to change lenses.

I now have 4-GF lenses; 23, 32-64, 63, and the 120. I consider all these to be excellent.

I've written a couple blogs on the GFX 50s and the lenses sharing samples from each.

Regarding the 63, I have that for when I'm in a darker than normal area and need a faster lens; I've also used this with great results shooting the Milky Way and lightning storms.

Don

 

[Wayne Fox]

I went with the zoom. The express purpose for me in investing in this system is size/weight. For me the zoom was sharp enough (I didn't test the 63, but did like what I saw with the zoom at 64mm). For me the gap between 23 and 63 is too large, and rather than fill it out with some 3rd party lens, the zoom solves that with the added flexibility of the full range of focal lengths, allowing the full sensor to be utilized when creating a composition.

I will add the 23. I also need to find a solution for around 85-90mm. I have the Hasselblad adaptor and the HC 50-110. Results are pretty good, but obviously size/weight of that lens contradicts what I'm trying to with the system. I've also tested the Hasselblad 210 as well as the 210 with 1.7x converter. Not a bad tele solution but again too heavy and large. Ok when working close to the car, but in those cases I'd opt for my XF.

 

[Paul2660]

For the 200mm range consider the Mamiya APO F2.8. Light weight and very sharp. Lacks a little contrast but that I can correct. The Fotodiox adapter works well with the lens also. I just wish it would mount to the XF.

Paul Caldwell

 

[Don Libby]

For the 200mm range consider the Mamiya APO F2.8. Light weight and very sharp. Lacks a little contrast but that I can correct. The Fotodiox adapter works well with the lens also. I just wish it would mount to the XF.

Paul Caldwell

My current 200 is my 3rd one now. I had the previous one adapted to the XF not certain if I'll do it with this one.

 

[narikin]

My current 200 is my 3rd one now. I had the previous one adapted to the XF not certain if I'll do it with this one.

Hey Don, where do you get the 200s adapted for the XF? you mean just using a 3rd party adapter, or is there something mechanical that needs to be done?

Thx

 

[Paul2660]

SK Grimes can do it. The physical mount has to be altered by being ground down.
The XF added extra pins as I understand it and the older APO glass can't fit.
Paul Caldwell

 

[DougDolde]

I am surprised that many who own the Phase One XF/IQ3-100 also have purchased a GFX.

Pick one:

!) Have more money than I know what to do with.

2) Am not satisfied with the P! kit

3) I am a shameless gear slut

 

[hcubell]

I am surprised that many who own the Phase One XF/IQ3-100 also have purchased a GFX.

Pick one:

!) Have more money than I know what to do with.

2) Am not satisfied with the P! kit

3) I am a shameless gear slut

Fourth choice:
I am an old man with a bad back.

 

[Paul2660]

Fourth choice:
I am an old man with a bad back.

+1

Wishing for 20 or so years ago. P1 and XF and tripod are massive. But the ability to move the LCD is a huge benefit for me. Setup shots at low angle much easier. I have tried Capture Pilot but the iPhone still can't display the image at the correct resolution.

Paul Caldwell

 

[Don Libby]

My current 200 is my 3rd one now. I had the previous one adapted to the XF not certain if I'll do it with this one.

SK Grimes (Paul beat me to it)

 

[Don Libby]

5th choice is I have no need to justify the tools I buy :facesmack:

 

[Wayne Fox]

+1

Wishing for 20 or so years ago. P1 and XF and tripod are massive. But the ability to move the LCD is a huge benefit for me. Setup shots at low angle much easier. I have tried Capture Pilot but the iPhone still can't display the image at the correct resolution.

Paul Caldwell

I’m in the same category. There are locations I either have to bring along a son or son in law (or at this point a couple of my grandsons) as a sherpa, or dramatically lighten the bag.

 

[dnercesian]

I am surprised that many who own the Phase One XF/IQ3-100 also have purchased a GFX.

Pick one:

!) Have more money than I know what to do with.

2) Am not satisfied with the P! kit

3) I am a shameless gear slut

2, sort of.

While the XF is wonderful, combined with the back and lens it gets pretty large and heavy. Personally, the reason for me to have a digital back is to use on a technical camera or view camera, which puts me on a tripod. Aside from that, if I actually have to hold/carry anything, I much prefer the size/weight of the GFX or the X1D. I also believe that mirrorless Medium Format options will close the gap a bit because of register distance. Being able to use the GFX on an Actus, Universalis, or other similar options out there has really got me thinking.

 

[dnercesian]

Wow, thank you everyone for all the perspectives on the lens choice. It seems like optics and rendering are not a separating factor here. That being the case, I am going to go by all my usual prime vs zoom feelings and try out the 63mm. I should have one this weekend.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I'm in the portability camp. Love my iq3100 systems (actus DB+ & XF ) but sometimes I want a smaller still MF system. I sold all of my 2:3 ratio 35mm gear because 4:3 or 5:4 is my way of seeing.

50mp was irrelevant.

I went 23 & 32-64 to start with plus fotodiox adapter to use my M645 lenses. Fuji 120 macro next.

 

[tjv]

The 63mm prime is slower to focus and hunts a lot more.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

I purchased the 32-64mm, a first class lens, the 120mm macro, quite superb and the best macro lens I have used with any camera (also great as a portrait lens), and a Canon TS-E 24mm used on the GFX with Cambo EF-GFX adapter. I skipped the 63mm as it has budget focus drive and I do not think it is noticably better than the zoom.

To deal with the question, I'd purchase the 32-64, you really cannot go wrong with it.